avalon-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <leosim...@apache.org>
Subject licensing (was: Re: screwed up cvs again)
Date Sat, 22 Mar 2003 13:31:49 GMT
screwup fixed (I hope). Boring but important stuff below.

I have run some tools over all of avalon cvs, save avalon-apps, to 
replace all @year@ strings with what I believe to be the proper 
copyright dates, and I believe I've eliminated all short license headers.

(I used regexps

/\*([^/]*)LICENSE file([^/]*)\*/

....source of trouble the first time was having an old update script 
which contained


which deleted everything up to and including the last comment in a file)

in all java files. I already modded the csframework files a week ago; so 
I think we're pretty much cleaned up wrt licenses now.

Actions I've taken in the last few weeks:

- removing all non-asf-produced jars from the cvs attic
- removing all jars with a license not confirmed to be ok from cvs
- update some of the build systems which do autodownload to ask about
   licensing before downloading jars (todo: phoenix, sandbox)
- adding full license to files with no license (todo for someone else:
   confirm there are no files without license)
- adding full license to files with the short license header (todo for
   someone else: confirm there are no files with the short header
- making sure no license header contains '@year@' instead of a copyright
- adding licenses to subprojects that didn't have them (todo: do this
   everywhere), making sure they got included in the jar and
   distributions (todo: make sure this is done everywhere)

Below a summary of the information about licensing every committer and 
preferably every contributor should be aware of and follow. It may be 
inaccurate as I am not a lawyer. Do not take it as legal advice. You 
should read and digest 
http://nagoya.apache.org/wiki/apachewiki.cgi?Licensing in addition to 
reading the below.

The Apache board has decreed that all apache projects need to include 
the full license in each and every sourcefile. This is because there 
exists some unclarity as to what the current license refers to; it is 
the understanding of smart peeps that it might be referring only to the 
"current file", ie the file it is included in. The apache 2.0 license in 
development will fix this, allowing including a short notice in the file 
header only.

You *need* to make sure every commit you make contains the full license.

Every license must have valid copyright date information. Valid samples are:


specifically invalid is


Everytime you edit a file, you need to make sure the copyright date 
information corresponds to the year you're making the edit in. For 
example, if you make a change to a file with copyright date information of


you need to change that date to




If the file has copyright information of


you should update it to read


All contributions made to the Apache Software Foundation are copyrighted 
by the Apache Software Foundation. Each and every file we distribute 
ideally has a copyright notice to this effect in it; this is most 
important for sourcefiles.

For every redistributable (for example qdox-1.1.jar) released under a 
different copyright and/or license, a license file should be included 
(for example qdox.LICENSE.html) in text or html format.

This is not just for binary distributions we make available; it is for 
CVS, too, as we provide access to cvs, and it is thus just another 
distribution channel.

Clearly, we must not in anyway do something which is not allowed under 
anyone else's license.

As an official ASF and Avalon policy, we do not wish to link to or 
redistribute redistributables which impose additional restrictions on 
users besides the restrictions placed upon them by the ASL. IOW, all 
"viral" or "copyleft" license are not okay.

This means we should not link (ie we should not 'import 
org.gnu.gpledClass') to, nor redistribute, files released under any of 
the following licenses (probably not a full list):


Furthermore, we should not make binaries released under

Sun Binary Code License

independently available (ie they cannot be in CVS or anything like 
that), though they probably may be provided as part of a distribution.

Licenses which are okay as long as they are included next to the 
redistributales, and any additional requirements in the licenses is 

BSD License

similar license like the MIT License and the W3C License should be okay 
too, but this is even less sure.

All sources we put into CVS should be under the ASL. There may be 
exceptions in the case of software grants or something similar, but this 
is something that needs to be checked and authorized by the PMC prior to 
a commit.

hope this clears some things up.


- Leo

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org

View raw message